Originally Posted by future_rupert

Why not have a independent commission to appoint people of high standing and expertise, who have real life experience in a certain sphere, whether it be industry, finance, policing, defence, law, education, health etc. rather than a bunch of self-serving, career politicians? Who wants another elected crowd who have proved themselves perfectly capable of corrupt actions? Give these appointed 'Lords' a life peerage, that they could stand down from or be stripped of if need be, and an annual fee, like a company would do for a board member, and allow them to block the lunacy that is occasionally produced by overzelous MPs.

Who will appoint the "independant" commission?

Originally Posted by Alsacien

Originally Posted by future_rupert

Why not have a independent commission to appoint people of high standing and expertise, who have real life experience in a certain sphere, whether it be industry, finance, policing, defence, law, education, health etc. rather than a bunch of self-serving, career politicians? Who wants another elected crowd who have proved themselves perfectly capable of corrupt actions? Give these appointed 'Lords' a life peerage, that they could stand down from or be stripped of if need be, and an annual fee, like a company would do for a board member, and allow them to block the lunacy that is occasionally produced by overzelous MPs.

Who will appoint the "independant" commission?

How about the Hereditary Peers...?

Originally Posted by future_rupert

Why not have a independent commission to appoint people of high standing and expertise, who have real life experience in a certain sphere, whether it be industry, finance, policing, defence, law, education, health etc. rather than a bunch of self-serving, career politicians?

A nice concept, but how many of these people would want to take time out from their careers with the associated loss of links to clients, CPD etc?

I also suspect that it would be very expensive indeed to run such a thing. People of the calibre required will be very high earners indeed & would need to have a huge sense of altruism & duty to take the job on.

I fear we could end up with the situation encountered at the BBC where salaries of £800,000+ are justified on the basis that "that's what they'd earn in the commercial world". I'd be very interested to see how many of the (let's say) top 30 earners at the BBC have (a) actually worked anywhere but in Government service and/or (b) been headhunted by the commercial sector.

Originally Posted by future_rupert

Why not have a independent commission to appoint people of high standing and expertise, who have real life experience in a certain sphere, whether it be industry, finance, policing, defence, law, education, health etc. rather than a bunch of self-serving, career politicians? Who wants another elected crowd who have proved themselves perfectly capable of corrupt actions? Give these appointed 'Lords' a life peerage, that they could stand down from or be stripped of if need be, and an annual fee, like a company would do for a board member, and allow them to block the lunacy that is occasionally produced by overzelous MPs.

Well, who would appoint the Commissioners? How would they be selected? And what does 'independent' really mean? Someone like Chilcott, for example?

The problem we have is that we would not ultimately appoint these Commisioners - as is the case now both for appointed and the hereditary Peers - so we're still no better off.

Is the current House of Laws, expenses scandals aside, really that flawed?

Like I pointed out earlier, leaders of industry, society, high achievers, government and opposition are all in there and it balances out rather well.

It's well past time we had an elected 2nd house, because, on the whole, society is better educated and able to choose, no need to be kept down by the luck of birth and patronage. An appointed and hereditary house is, by definition, unanswerable and should be consigned to the dustbin of outdated establishments.

To paraphrase a quote, a hereditary nobility is as much use as a hereditary doctor. That goes for appointing of cronies too.

Burn them, burn them all.

Blonde_Guy, under the former house of Lords Hereditory peers made up a good proportion of the house, and while, privelege aside, some were nutters (a small minority) for the most part they were people from all walks of life with experience. The problem with hereditary peers was most were "cross benchers".

The reformed HoL is by appointment - Predominantly political, ergo Mandleson, Paul, Uddin and a few others have got in there purely by patronage (cash for honours).

With Peers on cross benches no government was guaranteed a majority in the HoL, now they have weighted the Labour benches to "nod" through legislation.

All it needs is a ban on anyone who has been in politics beforehand or has donated more than £5,000 over a year to a political party in the past 5 years from entering.

That will stop the cash for honours, and people like Michael Martin, from entering an institution that has always diluted the crackpot schemes that "elected" MP's come up with.

Originally Posted by CaptainPlume

Originally Posted by Bouillabaisse

Mind you, 5 years is a long time. perhaps 2 years, but a different draft in each year so that there is some continuity, but not for long.

With respect I disagree. While I'd prefer the HoL to revert to a pre Year-Zero (1997) format there is a snowball's chance in hell of that happening.

I almost like the proposal for 15-year tenure in the HoL. That would put the membership outside the normal political cycle so landslides in the manner of 1979 or 1997 would not be replicated in the upper chamber & therefore legislation could be properly examined as it is probable that the Upper House would not be made up in similar proportions to the HoC.

In addition longer tenure would meen that an incumbent Government would be unlikely to be able to bully members of the HoL with threats that they would be deslected at the next general election...

But an upper chamber made up of citizens of good educational standard selected by lottery every year and for 2 years only would be independent, represent the general thinking of the nation at the time and would have little time to be corrupted or bribed before returning to their previous lives.

Once you'd served you cannot serve again for 15 years and then only if you voluntarily enter the lottery again.

A Tenure Bill, forcing employees to keep open jobs for representatives selected (as per TA) and a hardship Committee made up of members to examine excuses for not being selected.

A good salary based on a 35 hour working week, with those earning less in normal life getting a bonus and those getting more having the difference made up. Employees of the state (as they would be) would need to clock in to get paid - a minimum of 35 hours a week.

Housing provided in London for those that don't live there (under MOD rules) and weekend travel.

The Upper House would have oversight on govt legislature as it already does, with the same ability for the Commons to push through rejected legislation after a Lords rejection, no Lords interference in financial bills, no Lords interference with manifesto pledges

Originally Posted by bobthedog

Blonde_Guy, under the former house of Lords Hereditory peers made up a good proportion of the house, and while, privelege aside, some were nutters (a small minority) for the most part they were people from all walks of life with experience. The problem with hereditary peers was most were "cross benchers".

The reformed HoL is by appointment - Predominantly political, ergo Mandleson, Paul, Uddin and a few others have got in there purely by patronage (cash for honours).

With Peers on cross benches no government was guaranteed a majority in the HoL, now they have weighted the Labour benches to "nod" through legislation.

I believe it should remain as by appointment; but perhaps have more stringent criteria for handing out Peerages? Limit the amount of political peers, fill it with people who are experts in their field; Professors, Doctors, CEOs, Businessmen, Generals, Philanthropists, Entrepreneurs et cetera and yes even some politicians.

To elect a second house would reduce it to the petty electioneering of party politics.